Permanently delete a meeting outcome from OpenProject, with a preview-only mode before the irreversible change is applied. Use it to remove an outcome that was recorded in error.
Delete a meeting outcome; this cannot be undone.
Requires OpenProject 17.6+.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | false: preview only, nothing changes. true: applies it; get the user's approval of the preview first. | |
| outcome_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so 'this cannot be undone' largely restates structured data. The one piece of net-new context is the version requirement (17.6+), which the annotations cannot express. The preview-then-apply safety workflow implied by the confirm parameter is left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified for a destructive operation with a two-step confirm flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Rich annotations plus a schema-documented confirm parameter cover most of what an agent needs, and no output schema is expected here. Still missing is an explicit statement of the preview/apply workflow and any note on entity identification for outcome_id, which matters for an irreversible delete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%: confirm is well documented in the schema, but outcome_id has no description anywhere. The tool description says nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap — it never clarifies that confirm=false is a no-op preview and true performs the irreversible delete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (meeting outcome), so the agent knows exactly what entity is affected. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools create_meeting_outcome or update_meeting_outcome, though the delete verb does most of the disambiguating work.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage signal is the prerequisite 'Requires OpenProject 17.6+', which is genuinely useful but constrains feasibility rather than telling the agent when to choose this over update_meeting_outcome. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.